2012 election showed why it’s time to eliminate the Electoral College

This year’s election process once again proves it’s time to bury the Electoral College.

The Constitutional Congress created the idea of “electors” instead of a direct popular election in order to appease slave-owning states and protect small-population states from big-population states. Well, slavery is gone and many of the key swing states this election were large-population states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania among them.

Both campaigns spent nearly all their money and time on a handful of states, tailoring their messages even down to the county level (that is, saying one thing in one place and the opposite in another). They virtually ignored the rest of the nation.

With the elimination of the electoral system, presidential candidates will be forced to address the entire nation, as they should, not just a select few of the populace. That would force them to broaden and better defend their governing philosophies.

Eliminating the Electoral College would also boost voter participation. People often don’t vote in the non-swing states because they know their vote won’t mean much in a state solidly behind one or the other of the presidential candidates. Direct vote means their vote will count, especially in elections like this one where the popular vote but not the electoral vote was very close.

Bruce Most, Denver

This letter was published in the Nov. 8 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Bruce clearly hasn’t thought this through. In his system, the top cities by population would receive all the attention. This better than the status quo in what way? At least swing states evolve each election.

Anonymous

Agreed.

Anonymous

agree with your agree

Anonymous

Agree with each of your agrees.

Without the Electoral College, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles would be the only votes in play for the most part.

Anonymous

Yep. DIA would only be used as an emergency refuel location on candidate flyovers.

Anonymous

wrong! Because the voter in rural Montana would carry the same vote as the voter in New York. And the minority voter in New York would have his/her vote count the same as the majority voter in New York. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees?

Anonymous

Do the math, Hip. You’re not seeing the reality for the pedantism.

Anonymous

It’s the MATH that YOU are not seeing! The “math” says the majority opinion of the voters, the citizenry, the individual person . . DO NOT get counted, but instead, it’s all about the states. We’re a nation of PEOPLE. . not states.

Anonymous

That’s what you’d like it to be. It isn’t.

The United States is not a direct democracy, rather a representative republic. The president is determined through 51 individual elections — the states and the District of Columbia — the results of which determine how votes in the Electoral College are distributed.

My vote certainly counted to Colorado’s total, which is manifested in the Electoral College. You seem fixated on campaign stops, which didn’t influence my vote one bit; but that’s only part of the equation. It’s the policies and ideology that matter, and a smart candidate who needs only carry the New York, Chicago and San Francisco votes to win will shape his message to get that vote. And there are more votes there.

If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.

Anonymous

Of course large population centers would get more attention, but only because the candiate can addrss more people at one time. Isn’t it better to have large cities get personal visits, then states that never get more than one token visit, because they’re the wrong “color?”
Sorry, but I don’t want “swing states” like Colorado, Iowa, NEVADA, to decide our national elections as they clearly did this election. I want the “one person – one vote” individual vote to decide the elections. This is nonsense as goodspkr would say, that suggest states with large population centers have an edged over more rural states.

Anonymous

Denver is the 21st largest metro area in the country. We’re not exactly small.

For reasons many, including myself in previous threads, have already explained, the electoral college is here to stay. There is no way to get the votes necessary for the amendment required because small states will not vote against their own self-interest.

Anonymous

You speak of large metropolitian areas as if they are voting as one vote (as the states do in the EC)! This is not true. The Republicans voting in Denver, will get their vote counted without an EC, but in your world, they don’t get counted. A large metro area doesn’t not vote in mass, it’s individual votes all get counted. Some states have realized it’s not fair, and disportionate their EC votes based on the % of the individual votes their voters decide.

Anonymous

Years ago, I was a volunteer for a Colorado election campaign against a proposed ballot initiative. I sat in on some strategy-level meetings. Colorado has 65 counties. The campaign focus on 11 of that. Why? Because that’s where the majority of the people lived.

With a direct or popular election, the strategy would be the same: Concentrate on the cities or states where the people are. Much of the country would be ignored.

Colorado has only 1.5% of the country’s population. Yet, it was a player in the past two elections. Why? Its electoral votes were up for grabs. The electoral votes made a difference to the candidates out of proportion to the size of the state’s population.
Besides, there are lots more small states than big states. Those states have US representatives and Senators. Such a proposal would never make it out of Congress.
For better or ill, we are stuck with the electoral college.

Old Enough

This is one of the best explanations I’ve read on the electoral college.

Anonymous

Not if a Republican presidential candidate of modern Republican party values were to lose this way. Democrats typically, “rolled over” in 2000, including Gore himself. Republicans are not of this nature, and while they know they benefited from the EC in 2000, once they realize it also hurts them, then they’ll realize like suppressing the vote actually inspires people to stand in lines longer. . they’ll change it.

Anonymous

Until I see an analysis showing why enough small states will fall on the sword and sacrifice their disproportionate electoral power, I stand by my contention that the EC is going nowhere.

Anonymous

Thank you. You and I think alike on this.

Anonymous

Apparentely while you make “political” and realistic points, you’re in a minority in your ultimate acceptance of the EC.

SHOW ME, where a small state is going to be harmed by taking away their power in the EC?! For every small state that is impacted by not having more power in the EC election of a president, I’ll show you MILLIONS of disenchanted voters in solid red or blue states who’s votes (if they bother to vote at all) are not counted. How is that not a falling on a sword of one person one vote?

Anonymous

I’m not making a value judgment. I’m simply stating that it’s unrealistic to expect the EC to be abolished for the reasons I’ve specified.

Anonymous

peter I respect your superiour knowledge of voting in states like Colorado, but that vote for President in some rural county in Colorado, counted the same as my vote in Jefferson county. Everyone focused on Jefferson county because of it’s population, not that all the votes in my country went for the majority voters. This makes it different. Bruce really has a better explanation of why the Electoral College was created and why is DOES NOT apply today, and makes smaller population states actually more powerful than more population states in our election. Why was 4 EC vote NH such an important tossup state?
The Electoral College “can” be eliminated, but the REAL reason is won’t is these traditionalists,mostly Republican, who feel the Constitution is sacred and carved in stone. Time to move this country. . . forward.

Anonymous

The electoral college theoretically can be eliminated. All it takes is a constitutional amendment.
But that’s a huge “all it takes”.
The idea will never get out of Congress, not because of rascally Republicans, but because the small states don’t want to give up their power.
This is an issue that almost wrecked the Constitutional Convention. The large states wanted popular elections, and a Congress apportioned by population. The small states, fearing total loss of any say, wanted a Congress that was one vote per state. A Grand Compromise was reached that saved the Constitution: A two-house Congress, something almost no other democratic nation has, consisting of a House of Representatives apportioned by population and a Senate where each state gets two votes, AND the Electoral College.
That Grand Compromise is at the heart of our federal government.
The dynamics haven’t changed. The smaller states still feel they will go neglected if the president is elected solely by popular vote.

Anonymous

Peter I do understand the sensitivity of trying to change the (sacred) Constitution and the ever Constitional loyalists who never want this sacred document to change feeling we can work around what the Constitition denies or creates. But these same sentiments were in place when the Constitution WAS changed to end slavery, bring women the vote, implement the Civil Rights amendment, and other amendments. It’s a “living” document, and the Electoral College a vast majority of the people, both Dem and Repub, want to see eliminated.
To use the excuse that it’s still about “the small states,” is old hat. The small states that have 3-4 EC votes, have no real impact in many of our elections and when they do. . it’s not “democratic!” Most progressive thinkers feel the senate is old of date giving states like Hawaii and Rhode Island too much power in consideraton of states like California and New York and Florida, who have significantly more citizens affected by Senatorial decisions. That’s Democracy 101!
This is about one person – one vote. . the patriotic and democratic concept we started this country on and market to other developing countries. You don’t see these new democracies we are supporting installing a form of Electoral College in their states, and being the only industrialized country? that is using an EC to decide our leader, is literally laughable to other countries.
We avoid this issue EVERY election cycle when the EC goes along with the majority vote. Look at the controversy in 2000, yes, you can point fingers at SCOTUS and shady Republican dealings, but that wasn’t the real issue in a true democratic society. This is why I was hoping, solely for the purpose of taking on the EC seriously, that Romney would win the popular vote and Obama the EC. Because we both know, Republicans are a more action-orientated party, and if something is harming their power, they will do away with it, regardless of their beloved Constitution and how it helped them in 2000.

Anonymous

“With the elimination of the electoral system, presidential candidates will be forced to address the entire nation, as they should, not just a select few of the populace.”
———
On the contrary, the ONLY time the Electoral College makes any difference is when….

(1) the President-elect gets the most Electoral Votes while receiving the lesser number of actual votes (as has happened a few times) (but did NOT happen this time) and

(2) if, by chance, a third or fourth cadidate takes enough States so that no one gets the 270 Electoral Votes required…..and since the Constitution provides for the Electoral College and NOT a “run-off” election, then the Electoral College gets to pick whoever they want (and that apparently may have happened in the past).

In this election, it actually made No Difference…..at all.

President Obama got more {popular votes” AND more Electoral Votes……and did so by, as the map clearly shows, basically picking up the North-East and the West Coast….while Romney got a big chunk of everything else.

Clue: It really doesn’t matter if the Candidate caters to ALL the Nation of JUST the North-East and the West Coast. The concentration of both the population/voters AND the Electoral Votes in BOTH those locations……means that the way they vote…..pretty much determines the outcome……regardless of how the Mid-West and Central States vote.

In other words…..Obama could have IGNORED Colorado COMPLETELY…..and he would still have been re-elected. Neither our population, our votes, nor the Electoral Votes actually mattered one bit.

Compared to California’s population and number of votes…..Colorado is a “throw-away” State.

(That’s the reason we have a Senate…..where Colorado’s TWO Senators matches California’s TWO Senators……as opposed to the

Anonymous

Yep. Population centers will always get the attention.
Colorado gave him a cushion, though, that he thought he needed.

Anonymous

WHO CARES if “population centers’ get the candidates visits?! Did you ooh and aah, and rush down to DU to watch the debates or go to the Obama campaign stops here in Colorado? Did those visits DECIDE your vote? No, it was your values allgning with the candidate’s values, promises, and track record. Stop making elections local, and recognize the broader picture of a candidate representing a nation rather than a population center or large cities.

Guest

Eliminate the EC and Colorado & the other smaller states will be totally ignored. All a presidential candidate will have to do is campaign in the population centers. NE, Chicago, Philly, LA, SF and it becomes a done deal. Just what the libs want.

Anonymous

Who cares? Do you really chaulk up a personal presidential candidate visit as something personally important to your vote? Isn’t it really about the issues and how they align with your values. . rather than whether the candidates give your city or state any attention? I think we’re losing sight about what democracy is really about. . . one person – one vote. . rather than large population centers, candidate’s personal visits, and what cities have more voters.

irisman

Hey-hey- ho- ho Electoral College has got to go. it’s an antiquated system and causes the candidates to concentrate all their efforts in a small number of states. Even big states like California, Texas, and New York didn’t get the attention they deserve. No voting system is perfect, but we are capable of counting the popular vote, and that’s the fairest system.

Anonymous

Your logic is direct and simple. But politics is nuanced, where simplicity leads to the appearance of fairness, hidden behind that face is a bias. Peterpi summed it up nicely.

Look at tax rates, simple rates is the popular meme we hear bandied about. But simple rates will inherently favor the top rate payers as each deduction item is eliminated, the little guy ends up paying proportionally more. A popular vote sans electoral college buffering leads to the same hidden bias. Why bother voting when the behemoths of the country control the outcome?

If you want elections decided on the coasts and populous midwest areas, by all means kill the EC. Colorado TV/Radio stations will not be airing NEARLY as many attack ads, candidate pandering will disappear.

Hmmmmm, you could be onto something there now that I’m thinking about it ;~)

Anonymous

As goodskr would say . . NONSENSE! Yes, large population areas have more voters, and more voters suggest a majority, and yes, east and west coasts would attrack more candidate visits, and have more influence over an election. So what?! Don’t you want your vote to count the same as a Republican vote in New York, or a Democrat vote in Idaho? Shouldn’t EVERY VOTE COUNT? This is pure nonsense to worry about a concentration of voters having more influence in an election than a handful of rural voters. At least the rural voter’s vote gets counted the same as the majority or minority voter in a large population center. This is why our nation is the ONLY democratic country that has such ludicrous situtation like this.

Anonymous

I SO wanted a reverse result of what happened in 2000 – that Romney would win the majority vote and Obama the EC vote. Because the Republicans are more action-orientated than Dems, I had hope they would overturn this ancient Constititional process and put our country in line with other democratic countries. We’re the only democracy that does this, and the rest of the world looks at us as crazy. Granted it takes away the mandate from a president elected by the Electoral College, but whether it’s a minimal majority win or slight majority loss with an EC win, it’s still the same results.

Can you imagine whether you’re a Dem in Alabama, Idaho, or Utah, or a Repub in Washington, California, or Massachusetts. . . knowing your vote won’t count? Do you think the blacks and latinos in Flordia would of stood in line for 6-8 hours if Florida was a solid red state?
It’s time to move this country “forward” in what is a change that will benefit everyone.

http://www.facebook.com/kschoonover3 Schoonover Kenneth

It’s true that the Electoral College has problems. A President can lose the popular vote and still win the electoral vote because a few states determine the outcome of the presidential election. States that lose population are overrepresented because electoral votes are apportioned every 10 years according to the results of the U.S. Census. And the electors who make the presidential vote official don’t have to vote for their state’s winner. But I think “we the people” tend to forget a few things. We don’t always make rational decisions, and that’s why our Founders drew up our Constitution so that electoral votes, not popular votes, determine who wins the presidency. And our country is a representative democracy; we don’t make the decisions ourselves, but we vote for those people who will make the decisions. Finally, our Founders were afraid of giving too much power to one branch of the federal government. They didn’t want an all-powerful chief executive, Congress, or judicial system. Having electoral votes determine the presidency isn’t perfect, but our Constitution has lasted for 223 years–and our country has been around for 236 years. To use a familiar expression, why throw out the baby with the bath water? The states determine the Presidential election winner. The states can change their election laws so that Presidential electoral votes are apportioned on the basis of how many people voted for each candidate. But I wouldn’t throw out the whole system. I’d find ways to make it better.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...